5 Reasons Bernie Sanders Is More Qualified to Be Commander in Chief Than Hillary Clinton

[UglyGreed]

First and foremost, I respect Hillary Clinton as a human being and admire her courage in advocating health care reform in the early '90s. However, people change over time and Bernie Sanders is far more qualified than Clinton to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

I would never have made this YouTube video had Clinton not moved so far to the right on foreign policy that a Trump presidency might be just as hawkish in terms of war.

As for Donald Trump, logic dictates that if a person is known for saying "you're fired," then such an individual shouldn't have access to America's nuclear arsenal. Even Jeb Bush has "grave doubts" about Donald Trump as Commander in Chief. Trump shouldn't be anywhere near the White House, but then again, neither should a person with neoconservative allies who voted for the Iraq War. He also owes an apology to John McCain.

As for Hillary Clinton, her prior decisions and judgement, from Iraq to the bombing of Libya, have already been deemed mistakes. How supporters ignore these prior blunders is incomprehensible, especially since these decisions correlate directly to instability in the world today.

If you disagree with any of the reasons below, remember to focus on the logic of my argument, and not any conspiracy theories about why I'm writing this piece, or what I've written in the past.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/5-reasons-bernie-sanders-is-more-qualified-to-be-commander-in-chief-_b_8608074.html

[MineralMan]

1. Neither candidate has been Commander-in-Chief,

and neither has any military experience. Nor did President Obama. Presidents make military decisions only after taking advice from people who have specialized knowledge. Trying to predict what any candidate might do militarily is an exercise in futility. Until they are faced with actually making decisions and have the intelligence and advice from the military, they have no real competence.

Presidents must face those decisions only when they are in office.

[JTFrog]

2. Oh goody, more Goodman.

For fuck's sake this place is getting stupider and stupider.

"If you disagree with any of the reasons below, remember to focus on the logic of my argument, and not any conspiracy theories about why I'm writing this piece, or what I've written in the past."

LOL. He knows damn well no one takes his stupid ass seriously anymore... unless they can make his message fit their agenda.

[UglyGreed]

3. K

[CoffeeCat]

4. Very important and informative article...

If you've ever wondered why Robert Kagan (one of most notable neocons)--praised Hillary Clinton's stances on war and foreign policy--this article lays it out beautifully.

I like that the article sticks to the facts--presenting her war votes, very public war stances, actual quotes and connections to the for-profit prison industry. An industry that deemed Hillary was a terrific investment for them (by giving her campaign donations).

This article spells out her long history of foreign-policy decisions that are aligned with the neocons.

In addition, the article also clearly demonstrates how Hillary and Bernie are worlds are apart on this important foreign-policy matters. Very important!

It's utterly deplorable that when Hillary was Secretary of State, Robert Kagan served on her foreign-council advisory board. I mean really...that alone should be enough to sink her campaign

A great read. I'll definitely be posting to social media.

Great article on Hillary's neoconservatism, by Bloomberg.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-18/neoconservative-is-down-but-not-out-of-the-2016-race

[pinebox]

5. Waiting on ...

The big bad Goodman boogie man coalition with their shoot the messenger comments in 3, 2, 1....

LOL Kapow!

If you disagree with any of the reasons below, remember to focus on the logic of my argument, and not any conspiracy theories about why I'm writing this piece, or what I've written in the past.

[UglyGreed]

6. ribbit